| 1 |
On 06/21/2012 04:29 AM, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Richard Yao posted on Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:50:33 -0400 as excerpted: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>>>> POSIX Shell compliance |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>> So far as I know, every PM relies heavily upon bash anyway (and can't |
| 10 |
>>> easily be made not to), so even if developers would accept having to |
| 11 |
>>> rewrite all their eclasses, it still wouldn't remove the dep. |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>> Lets address POSIX compliance in the ebuilds first. Then we can deal |
| 14 |
>> with the package managers. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Additionally, this is extremely unlikely because a number of developers |
| 17 |
> insist on bash, to the extent that it would likely split gentoo in half |
| 18 |
> if this were to be forced. It wouldn't pass council. It's unlikely to |
| 19 |
> even /get/ to council. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Openrc could move to POSIX shell because its primary dev at the time |
| 22 |
> wanted it that way and it's only a single package. However, even then, |
| 23 |
> doing it was controversial enough that said developer ended up leaving |
| 24 |
> gentoo in-part over that, tho he did continue to develop openrc as a |
| 25 |
> gentoo hosted project for quite some years. Now you're talking trying to |
| 26 |
> do it for /every/ (well, almost every) package, thus touching every |
| 27 |
> single gentoo dev. It's just not going to happen in even the medium term |
| 28 |
> (say for argument APIs 5-7ish), let alone be something practical enough |
| 29 |
> to implement, soon enough (even if everyone agreed on the general idea, |
| 30 |
> they don't), to be anything like conceivable for EAPI5. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> So just let that one be. It's simply not worth tilting at that windmill. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Would you (or someone else) elaborate on the specific features of bash |
| 35 |
that people find attractive? |
Archives